Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to pick up just on that point right there. Throughout these hearings, I'm trying to assess the evidence from the perspective of the common person, who might be able to read our transcripts and understand exactly what we're talking about and how their lives might be made better or worse by the decisions this government makes, one would hope, on the basis of this committee's recommendations.
As there is some uncertainty over the removal of a word like “toxic”, then applying the precautionary principle in a legal format, why would we take the risk? Why open up the possibility of a much-delayed act, a much-delayed application of an act that is intended to make our environment, our ecosystem, a healthier place to be, all for the sake of removing a word and putting in its place a series or words with a little bit more vagueness to them? These will then be applied to a series of chemicals, some of which we would intuitively, inherently call “toxic” and dangerous. I understand the frustrations of the fertilizer companies and others, but why go down that path and why take the risk when all of our intentions around this table are to remove dangerous substances from our environment?